Emergent Differences in M3e vs. M2E

[4thstringer]

I have been thinking about how M3e plays compared to M2E, and how the game has felt like it has changed.  What types of abilities have ended up being more powerful due to the rules, what things have become more important to think about, and why they are different.  Here is what I have come up with, but I would love to hear what you have found:

1. Shooting is better- because only concealment puts you at a negative flip on the attack, cover alone isn't enough to protect against a gunline.  Carrying over focus has also helped with that.  

2. Resource management is tighter/more taxing- Because of the chance to spend a card on the initiative flip (and I think the nature of the abilities), it has seemed like card resources have been tighter than they have been in previous editions.  That can mean that lower flips still manage to hit more than they used to.

3. The Turn 2 strat point is so important-  Because missions like cursed idols and plant explosives kind of build up, if you don't get that first available strat point, those later strat points can be harder to get.   - Related to that:

4. Despite the catch up mechanics in the game, the game can often feel (and very well might be) out of reach by turn 3.

5.  The strats/schemes feel more action intense to achieve than any of the previous GG sets, much less the book sets in 2e.

6.  Card draw is more important than activation control.

7.  You know your opponents schemes by turn 3 usually.

What changes in the way games play out have you noticed?

 

[Adran]

2 minutes ago, 4thstringer said:

3. The Turn 2 strat point is so important-  Because missions like cursed idols and plant explosives kind of build up, if you don't get that first available strat point, those later strat points can be harder to get.   - Related to that:

4. Despite the catch up mechanics in the game, the game can often feel (and very well might be) out of reach by turn 3.

I feel the opposite to these two. Because it is so hard to get 4 Strategy points, missing scoring in an early turn is less critical. After all they only get harder if you score them.  Although Idols and Turf war are restricted so you can't both score maximum points, if you score them turn 4 and 5 you have guaranteed your opponent hasn't scored full points for them 

And likewise, just because in turn 3 you have no strategy points, and your opponent has 2 doesn't mean its game over, its often a lot easier for you to score and deny them.

[4thstringer]

6 minutes ago, Adran said:

I feel the opposite to these two. Because it is so hard to get 4 Strategy points, missing scoring in an early turn is less critical. After all they only get harder if you score them.  Although Idols and Turf war are restricted so you can't both score maximum points, if you score them turn 4 and 5 you have guaranteed your opponent hasn't scored full points for them 

And likewise, just because in turn 3 you have no strategy points, and your opponent has 2 doesn't mean its game over, its often a lot easier for you to score and deny them.

Thats great!  I'm glad that that isn't something you have been seeing.  I wonder if it is something about my meta that is causing that experience, because it hasn't been just my opponents that have felt that way.

[Paddywhack]

On 5/1/2019 at 7:08 AM, 4thstringer said:

4. Despite the catch up mechanics in the game, the game can often feel (and very well might be) out of reach by turn 3.

Not my experience so far either. Since they only get harder as you earn them, it has actually helped avoid one side steamrolling the other. So I missed it turn 2, my opponent has to spend more resources and I have more opportunity to stop him getting that 2nd point while it's still relatively easy for me to get my first point.

Related to that I've found scores much closer over all. 5-4 is a lot more common and I haven't seen or even read a lot of reports of total blow-outs. Not sure how that will play out in tourney rankings, but I'm hopeful the 10-0 that was so common might be much rarer (well 8-0 now).

[Maniacal_cackle]

On 5/2/2019 at 2:08 AM, 4thstringer said:

 3. The Turn 2 strat point is so important-  Because missions like cursed idols and plant explosives kind of build up, if you don't get that first available strat point, those later strat points can be harder to get.   - Related to that: 

I find this to be true, but for a different reason. On turn 2, your opponent still largely hasn't engaged you yet. Turn 2 is the last 'easy' score before every action has the potential to be disrupted by the enemy. So while you are likely only going to score 3 points anyway, scoring them early before your opponent can deny you is very useful. It also means that if you get an early lead (you get the point and your opponent does not), you can devote more resources to denying than your opponent can, creating a snowball effect.

On 5/2/2019 at 2:08 AM, 4thstringer said:

4. Despite the catch up mechanics in the game, the game can often feel (and very well might be) out of reach by turn 3.

Yeah, the game snowballs incredibly hard! It is extremely punishing of mistakes. We end a lot of games on turn 3-4 concessions (largely due to time constraints).

On 5/2/2019 at 2:08 AM, 4thstringer said:

6.  Card draw is more important than activation control. 

I'm not sure this is the case. Many games I play, the key is who is getting their strategy/scheme objectives off in a way that is hard to deny. Killing isn't that important in many setups, and so cards are less important as well. Killing is a means of achieving activation control (aka, stopping someone from activating), but getting your activations at the right time has been the central point of victory and defeat for me so far.

On 5/2/2019 at 2:08 AM, 4thstringer said:

7.  You know your opponents schemes by turn 3 usually.

I find that my opponent and I both set up for about 3-4 schemes that we MIGHT be going for (for instance, dropping a scheme marker in your deployment corner if you're on power ritual and can do this at low cost). There's quite a bit of back and forth, and often the second scheme is not revealed until end of turn 4. This means a lot of resources have to be used denying schemes that the opponent may not even be on.

Bluffing is another thing that has been central to victory/defeat in my games, so I think if you're finding schemes are revealed this fast, your playgroup may not be considering the power of bluffing. Or your playgroup may not be very focused on denying (where you try to predict the ways they could score pre-reveal and then stop it when you can).

Also consider scheme-baiting (have your first scheme be claim-jump and pretend to go for something like Outflank, but then when your opponent comes to deny you at the centre, you turn around and snag points for Assassinate).

Overall, interesting hearing these insights into the changes! I've not played 2E, so enjoyed this post

[frumpypigskin]

I've been the beneficiary of the catch up mechanic in the last 2 games I've played. Going Hoffman the last 2 games I've played I've been able to catch up and overtake in turns 4 and 5 by just having more left at the end of the game. Makes for very engaging play right to the end!